Surveillance of one trip home after a heroin deal doesn’t show nexus to the premises where defendant lived. State v. Jones, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 2798 (Sept. 24, 2020):
Here, the affidavit supports a finding of probable cause that Mr. Jones sold heroin. Likewise, it supports a finding that he lived at the Residence. It does not, however, support a finding that there was a logical nexus between the two. Namely, the affidavit contains only two recited facts that could arguably support a nexus. They include (1) unspecified business owners’ complaints that Mr. Jones sold drugs on Commerce Street (on the same street as the Residence), and (2) the affiant’s recitation that he followed Mr. Jones back to the Residence after a single drug transaction that occurred at a separate residence. Even given the required deference, these facts were insufficient to support the magistrate’s finding of a fair probability that the police would find contraband inside the Residence.